Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Could the Clerk rereport the amendment, please?

Mr. SCOTT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, considering this as legislation that will give parents the right to select a private school of their choice is an absolute distortion. It will give a select, privileged few an opportunity to select the school of their choice if they can afford the difference between what the voucher is and the cost of the education. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we talk about the polls that show support. What we ought to do is look at the referendums that have been taken across the country where people have had an opportunity to reflect for an entire campaign and get educated about the idea, not just a knee- jerk reaction to a poll. When we look at the referenda when people go to the polls and vote, these ideas are rejected by margins of approximately 3 to 1. And so we ought to look not just at knee-jerk reaction to the polls, we ought to look at what these bills actually do. I associate myself with the comments of many of the others. I just wanted to point out one little trickery in this bill. There is a provision that declares that receipt of the voucher shall not be considered as assistance to any school. That kind of language looks innocuous on its face, but it will provide that the Federal Government cannot enforce antidiscrimination procedures against those schools. For example, religious and national origin discrimination cannot be enforced. Racial discrimination cannot be enforced by the Federal Government. There would have to be individual suits, one after another. The Department of Justice cannot invoke the situation where they can withdraw funds. David Duke academies could be funded without the enforcement of civil rights. What is this language doing in the bill? It only gives exemption from Federal civil rights enforcement, and that is why we need to defeat the bill. It is under a closed rule. We cannot use an amendment to take that language out. We need to defeat the bill. This $50 million education gimmick will only take money from our public schools. We need to defeat the bill.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the U.S. Catholic Conference which states that it is unable to support this proposed legislation as currently drafted. That is because of many reasons, one of which is the ``Not School Aid'' provision in the new section 6405. They say that that section can readily be construed to negate the application of longstanding civil rights statutes which would normally apply to a scholarship program. Lacking independent antidiscrimination provisions elsewhere, that section effectively means that out of the myriad uses of title VI funds authorized, only the scholarship program authorized in this bill will be exempt from the civil rights statutes. Without clear confirmation that that section cannot be construed in this manner, it remains a serious concern. Mr. Speaker, we are very interested in civil rights application, and as presently drafted this bill exempts the scholarships from application of Federal civil rights enforcement. For that reason alone, the bill ought to be defeated. Mr. Speaker, the text of the letter referred to is as follows: Department of Education Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC, October 29, 1997. Hon. Frank Riggs, U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Riggs: On behalf of the United States Catholic Conference, I would like to share some concerns we have with H.R. 2746 which place the USCC in the regrettable position of being unable to support this proposed legislation as it is currently drafted. Allow me to state explicitly that the USCC has historically supported the right of all children to receive a quality education, be that in a public, private, or religious school. We recognize that the intent of your proposed legislation is to enable low income parents in areas of high poverty to send their children to the school they feel best serves their educational needs. We support the intention of H.R. 2746 in principle. However, we cannot support the proposition to fund this program through Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act or a program that contains the possibility of negating the application of current civil rights statutes. Of all federal programs requiring the participation of private and religious school students, Title VI is the most utilized by, and impacts most positively, private and religious school students. Title VI enables all schools, public, private and religious, to improve curricula, technology, literary programs, as well as obtain library and instructional materials. For over thirty years this program has had the highest participation level and the most equitable distribution of benefits for private and religious school students and teachers. Noting that the Clinton Administration has repeatedly zero funded Title VI in its annual budget proposals, as well as the Administration's strong opposition to any form of parental choice legislation, the USCC believes any move to amend Title VI in this manner would jeopardize the entire Title VI program by subjecting it to a potential use of the line item veto. It is the USCC's position that Title VI funding is so fundamentally important to public, private, and religious schools and their students that it should in no way be placed in such a compromised position. The definition of a ``voluntary public and private parental choice program'' in new section 6003(3) of H.R. 2746 raises an additional concern. Participation of a single private school in a choice program would meet the requirements of the new scholarship program. Thus, it would be permissible for an LEA or an SEA to divert significant Title VI funds to public schools by designing an overwhelming public school choice program that includes only one token private school. Under the current statute, public and private school children share equitably in the benefits and services provided with Title VI funds. LEAs and SEAs should not be allowed to upset this longstanding balance under the pretext of a public and private parental choice program that in reality would essentially be a public school choice program. While the USCC is confident that this is not the Sponsors' intent, H.R. 2746 needs to be clarified to insure that the choice programs authorized include representative numbers of both public and private schools. An additional reason why the USCC is unable to support H.R. 2746 is the ``Not School Aid'' provision in the new section 6405(a). Whatever its ramifications for defense against an Establishment Clause challenge, section 6405(a) can readily be construed to negate the application of longstanding civil rights statutes, in particular Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title X of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that would normally apply to a scholarship program. Lacking independent antidiscrimination provisions elsewhere in H.R. 2746, section 6405(a) effectively means that out of the myriad of uses of Title VI funds authorized, only the scholarship program authorized by H.R. 2746 would be exempt from the civil rights statutes cited above. Without clear confirmation that section 6405(a) cannot be construed in this manner, it will remain a serious concern for the USCC. Contrary to what some may argue, we have been advised by counsel that applying the civil rights statutes to the attenuated indirect benefits that participating private schools may receive from enrolling scholarship students will not result in an Establishment Clause violation. Again, the USCC expresses its support for the intent of the proposed legislation, but is unable to support H.R. 2746 due to the reasons outlined above. Very Truly Yours, Rev. Msgr. Thomas J. McDade, EdD, Secretary for Education.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California responded to some of the things I said but did not respond to when I said, shall not be considered assistance to any school, and I was wondering if somebody over there could respond to the effect of that language on special education students and the ability of private schools to discriminate on national origin and the effect of that language on the Department of Justice enforcing civil rights laws of the country.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose this undemocratic process in which the voucher bill is being considered today. It is ridiculous that the House will consider a bill which has existed for 1 week, had no hearings, no markups, now being considered under a closed rule, thereby preventing Members from offering amendments. Madam Speaker, there is one amendment that I would have liked to have had the opportunity to offer, and that would be to ensure that civil rights protections for all students would be available. Any entity that receives Federal aid must comply with Federal civil rights laws and the Justice Department is empowered to enforce those laws. This bill contains a statutory trick that declares private schools receiving vouchers are not recipients of Federal funds and therefore not subject to Federal enforcement of civil rights laws. This provision is in the bill intentionally. The closed rule protects it from amendments so that we cannot correct the egregious problem or any other problems that exist with the bill. Make no mistake about it, the acceptance of the rule is acceptance of the intentional exclusion of the applicability of Federal civil rights laws. Madam Speaker, I would also like to have considered amendments that would have informed parents of expenses and special education students of services available to them. But the acceptance of this rule prevents it from being exposed for what it is, bad civil rights policy, bad policy for parents of children who would be lured into this scam, as well as bad policy for the 99 percent of the children who will be left behind in overcrowded, crumbling and unfunded schools. Madam Speaker, as for the poll that suggested that people supported this, that poll measures only the knee jerk reaction to a sound bite. We ought to put up a graph that shows what happened when people had an opportunity to vote on it on a referendum, after they have been educated about what a bad idea this is. The last 20 times it has been on the ballot it has gone down by margins averaging 3 to 1. Vote no on this rule. It is a bad bill.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, considering that this bill was vetoed because it lacked a health exception, does the subcommittee chairman intend to process similar legislation which exempts from the bill's coverage cases where it is necessary to protect the health of the mother, which provision, of course, is necessary in order for the bill to meet constitutional muster so that we can actually have a bill?

Mr. SCOTT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] to explain his request.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, since it is clear that the constitutionally required health exception will probably not be included and so that we can determine the effect of the motion to refer and because it would seem useless to have this bill just gathering dust in the Committee on the Judiciary until we engage in another futile political exercise during next year's campaign, I would ask the gentleman when we could expect a bill to be considered by the House?

Mr. SCOTT. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I would just say that we disagree on the constitutionality of a bill without the health exception and several State bills very similar to this have been already thrown out just this year. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Moran amendment, particularly because it eliminates the voucher program which constitutes a frontal assault on the idea of universal education for all, and it also violates church-state separation. Mr. Chairman, we ought to be asking as we consider vouchers whether or not this program will help improve education for all of our children, whether it will foster discrimination, and whether there are better ways to use the money. First of all, Mr. Chairman, many cite the polls, and they asked in the poll question: Do you support a voucher plan that will allow parents to send their children to a public, private, or parochial school of their choice? Mr. Chairman, let me offer a few facts on the table. Only 3 percent might get a voucher, 97 percent will not. There are not enough seats in the Washington, D.C., area for 2,000 additional children to go to private school. Most of those are religious schools, where there will be constitutional challenges, so most of the 3 percent will not even be able to use the vouchers. We have to differentiate, Mr. Chairman, between the cost of the school and the tuition. Unless there is significant private underwriting, there are not going to be any additional seats for people to go to. So the polls should be asking, Mr. Chairman, whether or not people support a plan that will give 3 percent a voucher that most cannot use, and divert money from a school system that needs new roofs, and do nothing for 97 percent of the students. Mr. Chairman, we know how to improve education. We need to invest in education, and we can make significant improvements if we do that. Mr. Chairman, we know the voucher program is also an insult to the residents of Washington, D.C., who have voted against it in the polls, and their elected representatives have repeatedly rejected it. So we know what they think about the voucher program, and we should not substitute what we know they have done with the results of a misleading poll which generates political sound bites. Mr. Chairman, let us invest in our education funds and public education to improve education for all. I urge my colleagues to reject vouchers and support the Moran amendment.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because the rule leaves out the possibility that we can consider a bill that is constitutional. This bill is clearly unconstitutional, and State laws have been thrown out recently because the Supreme Court has said that we cannot restrict a woman's right to choose if the restriction endangers the life and health of the mother. Mr. Speaker, nine State lawsuits have been decided just this year that have thrown out similar State laws. For example, in Michigan the court said that such a ban ``would operate to eliminate one of the safest post-first-trimester abortion procedures,'' and the court therefore found that a woman would have to go into riskier procedures and they threw out the law. In Nebraska the ban was unconstitutional because it would subject patients to ``appreciably greater risk of injury or death.'' That law was enjoined just this year. In Montana, just this year, the court concluded that there would be an increase in the amount of risk and pain that must be suffered, and they enjoined the implementation of the law. Louisiana, they found that it would be unduly burdensome by virtue of banning the safest, most common procedures used after the first trimester. Mr. Speaker, State after State after State concluded that the law was unconstitutional. We need to defeat the previous question so that we can consider the amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Maryland that would make the law constitutional so that we can consider a constitutional law. I would hope that we would defeat the previous question, adopt the Hoyer amendment, or defeat the rule.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we focus on what this bill does. It prohibits one procedure. Nothing in the bill affects the decision to have any abortion. If this bill passes, women who decide to have a legal abortion will still be able to get that abortion. Some will just have to be subjected to other procedures that their doctors conclude will be more likely to kill, maim, or sterilize them. We have heard, and I assume we will hear more, graphic descriptions of this procedure, but the fact is that other alternatives which will be used have not been described graphically today, and probably will not be. So the point of this bill is not to reduce the number of abortions. In fact, the point of today's vote will not even be to enact a bill, because this version is clearly unconstitutional, so much so that similar laws in the States have been thrown out at least nine times this year alone. Mr. Speaker, though abortion has always been a controversial issue, the fact is that since 1973 the Supreme Court decision Roe versus Wade decreed that abortion will be legal in this country. Roe, which is still the law of the land, held that a woman's right to have an abortion before fetal viability is a fundamental right. The State may, however, prohibit post-viability abortions, but only if there is no substantial threat to the life or health of the mother. In Planned Parenthood versus Casey, 1992, the court reaffirmed this holding. Mr. Speaker, other Supreme Court decisions have added to this concept by prohibiting regulations that jeopardize a woman's health by chilling the physician's exercise of discretion in determining which abortion method may be used. So interference with a physician's exercise of discretion jeopardizes the woman's health, and is therefore as dangerous as it is unconstitutional. Although the health of the mother must remain a primary interest in order to pass constitutional muster, today's bill includes no provision which allows an exception from the ban in those cases where the other methods pose serious health risks to the mother. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act will not prevent a single abortion. It simply prevents one procedure which, in certain circumstances, is the safest procedure available. Mr. Speaker, many of us support a total prohibition on post-viability abortions as long as it is consistent with Roe versus Wade, by protecting the health of the mother. But this bill only prohibits one procedure, not the decision to undergo the abortion. Therefore, if this bill passes, the only effect, as I have said, will be that some people will have to undergo a more dangerous procedure which will increase their chances of them being killed, maimed, or sterilized. I hope that my colleagues will work to prevent this result. This debate should not be about politics, it should be about the woman who may need this procedure to protect her health and reproductive ability but may not have access to it because Congress decided that it should play doctor and politics. Let us put women's health first and defeat the bill.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we have heard about the need to get tough on crime and have people serve 85 percent of their time. They keep leaving out the fact that the time to be served is going to be less. As I indicated, in Virginia, a 10-year sentence where Charles Manson would have served all 10 years has been converted; where others may have gotten out early, Charles Manson would have served 10 years. Now, he will get out in half the time, but he will serve all 5 years. Mr. Chairman, the cost of that, to have Charles Manson serve as much as half of his time, will cost Virginia about $2 billion. Even the supporters, after you have doubled the average time served, Charles Manson, of course, will serve less time, double the average time served, they only promise approximately 3 percent reduction in crime. I think arguments could poke holes in the 3 percent, but if we give them the benefit of the doubt, we are spending billions of dollars for virtually no measurable reduction in crime. Mr. Chairman, there is a more cost-effective way of dealing with crime, and the drug court program is certainly one of those strategies. It uses the criminal justice system as a hammer to make sure the defendants are serious about drug rehabilitation. The money can be used not just for the court system, but also for services, because many courts have no local services to which they can refer the defendants. So the money can be used to establish meaningful rehabilitation. Mr. Chairman, drug rehabilitation has been studied over and over again. The gentleman from Florida has indicated one study that he said was inconclusive, but the study in California showed that there was so much crime reduction and reduced health care expenses that the State saved $7 for every dollar they put into drug rehabilitation. Mr. Chairman, we have a win/win possibility here. We cannot only reduce expenses, but also, we can reduce crime. We have to have the political courage to do it. I would hope that we would accept the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, the half billion dollars in truth-in- sentencing prison funding will not have a measurable effect in the crime rate because States are already spending tens of billions of dollars in prison construction, but this amendment will make the huge increases in proven crime prevention initiatives possible. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure that at least half of the money slated to be wasted on a few new prison beds will be redirected to productive use in actually reducing crime.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would transfer one half of the funds in the truth-in-sentencing prison grant program, approximately $250 million, to crime prevention, drug treatment and family resource service programs that are inadequately funded in the bill. Mr. Chairman, the so-called truth-in-sentencing approach to crime reduction is actually half-truth-in-sentencing. The proponents will tell you that no one gets out early. That is the half truth. The whole truth is that no one is held longer either. When States adopt truth-in- sentencing schemes, the first thing they do is to reduce the length of the total sentence and then direct that the defendant serve all of the reduced sentence. I am not aware of any State that has been able to afford to abolish parole without reducing the time served by the worst criminals. For example, Mr. Chairman, in a 10-year sentence with parole, the average defendant will serve about 3\1/2\ years. The lowest risk prisoners will get out as early as 2 years. But the worst criminals will serve all 10 years. With truth-in-sentencing, everyone will serve the exact same average 3\1/2\ years. The less dangerous will serve more time; the most dangerous will serve less time. If the State were to triple the average time served so that everyone serves 10 years and were able to triple their prison budget, the worst criminals would still serve exactly what they serve today, the 10 years, and the taxpayer will have been bilked of billions of dollars. Mr. Chairman, furthermore the States are already spending tens of billions of dollars on prison construction. The Federal money, less than half a billion dollars, cannot possibly make any measurable difference either in the number of prison beds to be built or in the reduction in crime. But if that money is spent in prevention, we can make a difference. This amendment assures that at least some of the money will be used to encourage States to adopt crime reduction approaches that actually will reduce crime. Of the approximately $250 million, $80 million would go to increasing funds for building and running boys' and girls' clubs in public housing and other sites for at-risk youth. Boys' and girls' clubs have been shown through study and research to be cost-effective ways of reducing crime for both at-risk youth when they are young and when they become adults. Another $40 million would go to grants to combat violence against women. $13 million would go to court-appointed special advocates to help troubled youth in the criminal justice system, and $8 million for the child abuse training programs funded in the bill. All of those are aimed at child abuse reduction. It is well documented that reducing family violence and child abuse will reduce crime. The amendment also provides $37 million for residential drug treatment for prisoners before they are released and approximately $75 million for drug courts. Both prison drug treatment and drug courts have been shown to significantly reduce crime. The drug court program has been studied and compared to other persons who are sent to jail, and a year after completion of either the drug court or the prison sentence, they have found that those completing the drug court program had an 11 percent recidivism rate, while those who were sent to prison had a 68-percent recidivism rate. Moreover, those completing the drug court program had a cost of about $1,000, while those completing prison were in prison at a cost of $15,000 to $30,000. These funds would therefore not only reduce crime, but also save money. The amendment also adds $4 million to the fund which supports law enforcement families. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a problem putting people in jail in this country. The United States trades places with Russia year to year as the world's greatest incarcerator. This year Russia is ahead with 690 prisoners per 100,000, and the United States is a close second at 600 per 100,000, whereas the international average is only about 100 prisoners per 100,000 population. In some of our inner-city communities, the incarceration rate actually exceeds 3,000 per 100,000. So it is not a question of putting too few people in jail, and this amendment does not suggest that we incarcerate any less than we already do. It just says that if you are going to spend new money, we ought to use the money to encourage States to adopt crime reduction strategies which have been actually shown to reduce crime.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just like to point out that one thing the proponents often leave out when they talk about 85 percent of the time is that the time given is less. For example, in Virginia we abolished parole and adopted the rhetoric of truth in sentencing. A 10-year sentence where some got out in a year and a half, some got out in 10 years, the average is 2\1/ 2\, we doubled the average time served to 5 years. But the most heinous criminals, those that could never make parole, were getting out in half the time they would have served. They will serve all 5 years, which is half the time they would have been able to serve if they had been, if the parole board had been able to deny the parole to the most dangerous, most heinous criminals. When one says 85 percent, one ought to say 85 percent of what, and the cost of getting up to half where the most dangerous criminals that get out in half the time, Virginia is in the process of spending $2 billion to do that. This amount of money that we are talking about nationally is less than a billion dollars, much less than a billion dollars. Virginia alone spent $2 billion, and the most dangerous criminals will be getting out in half the time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, although this amendment has been accepted by representatives from the Committee on Appropriations on both sides, I rise to speak very briefly against the amendment. I oppose the amendment for two reasons. One, it is bad public policy. The people in prison will get out, and we know that education will make a difference in their ability to survive and be productive citizens outside. This amendment reduces the education available for prisoners and, therefore, is bad public policy. In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a statement from Secretary Riley dated July 30, 1997 in which he says: I understand that an amendment will be offered to the Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill that would undermine the very important bipartisan and bicameral agreement on the IDEA that President Clinton signed into law less than 2 months ago. The IDEA legislation is the product of a painstaking process that reflected thoughtful compromises on behalf of all parties and that will bring about improved services and results for children with disabilities. It took at least 2 years to get a balanced agreement and now, before it is even given a chance to work, efforts are being made to upset it. The Secretary goes on to say, As a full participant in this agreement, I strongly oppose any effort to undermine its enforcement. I am committed to honoring the principle that all children 3 to 21 have access to a free appropriate public education. Congress reaffirmed this principle in passing the IDEA amendments last month, which included new provisions allowing reasonable resolution to issues regarding educational services in adult prisons, particularly concerning violent offenders. Mr. Chairman, I include the letter from Secretary Riley for the Record. U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Secretary Washington, DC, July 30, 1997. Statement by Secretary Richard W. Riley I understand that an amendment will be offered to the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill that would undermine the very important bipartisan and bicameral agreement on the IDEA that President Clinton signed into law less than two months ago. The IDEA legislation is the product of a painstaking process that reflected thoughtful compromises on behalf of all parties and that will bring about improved services and results for children with disabilities. It took at least two years to get a balanced agreement and now, before it is even given a chance to work, efforts are being made to upset it. As a full participant in this agreement, I strongly oppose any effort to undermine its enforcement. I am committed to honoring the principle that all children ages 3-21 have access to a free appropriate public education. Congress reaffirmed this principle in passing the IDEA amendments last month, which included new provisions allowing reasonable resolution to issues regarding educational services in adult prisons, particularly concerning violent offenders. Mr. Chairman, I therefore would prefer that my colleagues reject the amendment, although I know it is going to be adopted on a voice vote, because it dishonors the historic, bipartisan legislation signed last month, and because it represents bad public policy.

Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that the position taken by the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] was offered, and many of us thought it had been in fact rejected; that if there were a financial penalty, the financial penalty would be limited to the pro rata share of the persons not served, but at no point was an option given that there were other enforcement mechanisms possible. We differ in terms of what we thought. Everybody else thought there was in fact no option, that the position articulated had in fact been rejected. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman in his opposition to this amendment. It is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that despite the drastic school resegregation that is taking place in both California and Texas, that we are considering an amendment that would encourage the resegregation of other schools around the country. Mr. Chairman, the University of Texas Law School, which had no blacks until ordered by the Federal courts, will have no African-Americans in this year's first year class. The University of California at Berkeley Law School will only have one African-American in its first year law school. Medical schools have also registered drops in African-American enrollment of 80 and 90 percent, numbers which are the lowest since the 1960's. Instead of being appalled by the resegregation of our schools in Texas and California, this amendment applauds turning back the clock and encourages other States to follow suit. It prevents the Federal authorities from determining whether the absence of blacks is mere coincidence or an intentional result of an invidious discrimination, and it prevents the Federal Government from remedying illegal discrimination. The provision of this amendment which gives the States the ability to opt out of civil rights enforcement is particularly egregious. It suggests a bizarre interpretation of Federalism in which a State can exempt itself from Federal enforcement of civil rights laws simply by passing a statute, even if that statute is not enforced. Mr. Chairman, the State institutions who receive Federal funds have the responsibility of ensuring that those funds are being disbursed in a manner that does not discriminate against minorities and women. But if they fail in that responsibility, then the Federal authorities must vigorously enforce title XI and title IX of the Civil Rights Act. Mr. Chairman, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in the Adarand decision, stated, and I quote, ``The unhappy persistence of both the practice and lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups in this country is an unfortunate reality, and government is not disqualified from acting in response to it.'' This amendment would effectively disqualify us from acting responsibly to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to become productive members of our society. I therefore urge the Members of this body to support diversity in education, oppose the resegregation of America's schools, and vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?